It would seem that Giorgio was thinking that you are not really letting them go. The life expectancy can be pretty darn short if you cook them enough.
I am of the mind that you make them do it anyway, and it is part of the Death Penalty.

I assume you are aware that acute radiation sickness can be a very painful and messy way to die- hemorrhages in joints, profuse bloody diarrhea, massive infections,etc. Are you advocating torture?

PS: Moral issues aside, what makes you think the prisoners would work. The US tried to put prisoners to work in WW2 on the assumption that criminals would make good killers. I didn't work, they just make lousy undisciplined soldiers.
The system worked somewhat for the Russians, but they had to threaten them with trailing executioners that would shoot anyone running away. And, this worked probably because most of these soldiers were not actually criminals, but regular soldiers assigned to these disciplinary battalions because they were late for roll call, or sneezed while at attention, or what ever excuse was necessary to fill out the requirements.

Selecting Death row inmates as possible volunteers, even if you avoid 'tortue' by killing them as soon as they show signs of radiation sickness is questionable. First they would need to be trained for the job, that might take weeks. Why not just call for volunteers from the trained workers. It will be for the greater good, save them a place in heaven etc. This is the motivation used for kamikaze pilots, suicide bombers, etc. The only difference is the recruiters and their definition of what is good.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Leaving somebody as a rear guard as you retreat from a battlefield, or telling someone to charge so that you can spot a machine gun nest is not much different, except it is not considered suicide, there is a small chance they might survive. A fine distinction, but still it seems to be more acceptable to Western society.

It's a stupid line of conversation which would usually end up in signing off those members of society, that the majority feels are the cause of problems, to do all the work no one else would want to do and [in repressing them] that it is a means to fix the problems that others have caused.

Ring any bells?

'Death row' is a form of psychological torture and, if sentence is commuted, physical torture.

What gets me is that the members of a supposed Christian country then nod their heads and say 'quite right too'. I find it pretty disgusting.

I find it a complete and absolute argument that just someone has acted as an animal in their deranged life doesn't mean that society should follow their example and do back to them what they have done. Falling into that trap means that it is violence that has won all around.

chrismb wrote:I find it a complete and absolute argument that just someone has acted as an animal in their deranged life doesn't mean that society should follow their example and do back to them what they have done. Falling into that trap means that it is violence that has won.

Probably in a country where animals are kept behind bars and forbidden to re-enter society your logic could be valid.
In my country even if you get life sentence (we do not have death penalty here) you normally get out in between 10 to 15 years.

I have the debate off and on in my head whether a Capitol Crime Convict should be given a painless death. Sometimes I think that in the cases of outrageous acts on his/her victim(s) that they should be given some similar treatment.

I al so like the idea that they languish on death row for a while teased with the possibility of life, only to be executed in the end.

Overall, I do not have much sympathy for someone who chooses to exercise a distinct lack of sympathy for others.

If you come in my home with a weapon, I am going to kill you, and I will not ask why you are there. If you come into my home without a weapon, I may tell you to leave, or not.

As stated above, having society matching the savagery of a murderer is disgusting. Some have argued that torturing and /or executing criminals will inhibit other criminals. From a practical standpoint, it is my understanding that this does not work, and so the argument is invalid.

The argument for executing the death row inmate makes practical sense if the cost is less than the alternative of life imprisonment. As the current system works, this also doesn't seem to apply.

Finally, there seems to be an appalling frequency of death row inmates that are found later to be innocent.

I'm somewhat ambiguous about the death penalty, but it does seem to be unprofitable, except for purposes of revenge.

I do not see it so much as society matching the savagery. I see it as the vendor having a chance to experience what he sells.

I admit that I debate this point back and forth for myself over the years. However, that said, I still have little too no sympathy for those that demonstrate they have none for others.

I see the whole issue as one where the rights of all matter not to the one.
Think of it on a smaller scale. You are in a spacecraft with a group of five. You are stranded aboard with limited resources, but just enough to make it to a rescue. One of the group kills another. He does this to "ensure" there is enough for him to survive until rescue. In my position, he goes right out the airlock. He has fundamentally violated the construct of the micro society the five were existing in.

You might have noticed I said ask them if they would volunteer, I would never agree with forcing the task on someone. There are people doing life for murder who have reformed themselves sufficiently that they might agree to do the work as a means of atonement/self redemption.

There are other people who have a terminal illness that while allowing them to remain physically capable know it will kill them soon anyway.

You let them know the risk and provide them with the option of a cyanide pill for when the pain becomes to difficult to bear. Some people are motivated by the concept of saving millions by making a noble sacrifice of themselves.